Pre-emptive ibuprofen arginate in third molar surgery: a double-blind randomized controlled crossover clinical trial

Effect of topical application of ibuprofen/arginine on the in-office bleaching-induced tooth sensitivity: A randomized, triple-blind controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The application of anti-inflammatories as topical desensitizers before dental bleaching is an approach to reduce bleaching-induced tooth sensitivity (TS). This randomized controlled trial compared the risk and intensity of TS and the color change resulting from in-office dental bleaching after using an experimental desensitizing gel containing ibuprofen and arginine.

METHODS

Sixty-two participants with upper canine shades A2 or darker were randomly assigned to either the ibuprofen-arginine desensitizing group or the placebo group. The desensitizing gel was applied for 15 min before in-office bleaching with 35 % hydrogen peroxide gel for 50 min (2 sessions). To assess the absolute risk and intensity of TS, visual (0-10) and numeric rating (0-5) scales were used, and group comparisons were made using the McNemar test, Wilcoxon test, and paired Student t-test (α = 0.05). Color change was evaluated using Vita Classical, Vita Bleachedguide (ΔSGU), and Vita EasyShade (ΔEab, ΔE00, and ΔWID) before and one month after the bleaching procedure. Group comparisons for color change were done using a paired t-test (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

The odds ratio for TS was 0.14 [95 % CI 0.02 to 0.6], meaning lower odds of TS for the desensitizing gel. A lower intensity of TS was also observed for the experimental group (p < 0.005) up to 48 h after bleaching. All color evaluation tools demonstrated effective and similar whitening for both groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Using the experimental desensitizing gel containing ibuprofen and arginine effectively reduced the risk and intensity of TS without compromising the bleaching efficacy.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The topical application of ibuprofen/arginine on the in-office bleaching reduced risk and intensity of bleaching-induced tooth sensitivity.

Single-Dose Ibuprofen-Arginine as a Preventive for Pain, Edema, and Trismus After Impacted Lower Third Molar Surgery: A Randomized Split-Mouth Clinical Trial

Objective  We examined if the association of ibuprofen with arginine has a better anti-inflammatory effect on pain, edema, and trismus after surgery of the impacted mandibular third molar than ibuprofen alone.

Materials and Methods  The study included 21 patients, 18 to 30 years of age, each with an impacted, and bilateral and symmetric third molar (total n  = 21) that required transalveolar extraction. Patients were randomly assigned numbers from 1 to 21. Group A received ibuprofen-arginine as preoperative medication, while Group B received only ibuprofen. Both groups received the same postoperative medications: amoxicillin + acetaminophen. All patients were evaluated for pain at 6, 12, and 24 hours. They were evaluated for edema and trismus before surgery; immediately after surgery; and at 24, 48, and 72 hours postoperatively. Postoperative pain scores used the visual analog scale (BS-11). For facial edema and trismus, linear measurements used the method modified by Gabka and Matsumura.

Statistical Analysis  For the evaluation of data between Group A and Group B, we used the statistical software SPSS version 22. The Shapiro-Wilk, analysis of variance, the Bonferroni comparisons, and the Wilcoxon test were used. All tests were based on a significance level of 0.05.

Results  The study results reveal that the facial edema scores of Group A and Group B presented statistically significant differences ( p  < 0.05), while for postoperative trismus, there was no statistically significant difference ( p  > 0.05) between the scores of Group A and Group B.

Conclusion  As a conclusion, we can state that the use of ibuprofen-arginine allows for significantly better control of pain and edema, and shows a tendency toward better recovery from trismus, although without statistical significance. Based on this, we can assert that arginine improves the anti-inflammatory power of ibuprofen, thus generating better tissue healing after surgery of the impacted third molar.

Preemptive use of intravenous ibuprofen to reduce postoperative pain after lower third molar surgery: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

This study aimed to systematically review the literature to assess the effect of preemptive intravenous ibuprofen on pain reduction after lower third molar surgery. Nine databases (PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, SciELO, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, Open Gray, and Open Thesis) were used as sources of research, including "grey literature." The protocol was registered in PROSPERO. Only randomized clinical trials evaluating the effects of preemptive intravenous ibuprofen on pain during and immediately after the extraction of lower third molars were included, without restrictions of year and language. Two reviewers independently performed the study selection, data extraction, and assessment of the risk of bias. The "Joanna Briggs Institute for Randomized Controlled Trials" tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Each study was categorized according to the percentage of positive responses to the questions corresponding to the assessment instrument. The results were measured narratively/descriptively. The initial search resulted in 3,257 records, of which only three studies (n=150 participants) met the eligibility criteria and were included in the qualitative analysis. All studies were published in 2019. The risk of bias ranged from low to moderate. Two studies found significant pain reduction within 48 h after the procedure. In conclusion, the use of preemptive intravenous ibuprofen for extracting third molars reduces pain and analgesic consumption after the surgical procedure.

Pre-emptive and preventive NSAIDs for postoperative pain in adults undergoing all types of surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain is a common consequence of surgery and can have many negative perioperative effects. It has been suggested that the administration of analgesia before a painful stimulus may improve pain control. We defined pre-emptive nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) as those given before surgery but not continued afterwards and preventive NSAIDs as those given before surgery and continued afterwards. These were compared to a control group given the NSAIDs after surgery instead of before surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of preventive and pre-emptive NSAIDs for reducing postoperative pain in adults undergoing all types of surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and CINAHL (up to June 2020). In addition, we searched for unpublished studies in three clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, grey literature databases, and reference lists of retrieved articles. We did not apply any restrictions on language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only. We included adult participants undergoing any type of surgery. We defined pre-emptive NSAIDs as those given before surgery but not continued afterwards and preventive NSAIDs as those given before surgery and continued afterwards. These were compared to a control group given the NSAIDs after surgery instead of before surgery. We included studies that gave the medication by any route but not given on the skin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methods expected by Cochrane, as well as a novel publication bias test developed by our research group. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Outcomes included acute postoperative pain (minimal clinically important difference (MCID): 1.5 on a 0-10 scale), adverse events of NSAIDs, nausea and vomiting, 24-hour morphine consumption (MCID: 10 mg reduction), time to analgesic request (MCID: one hour), pruritus, sedation, patient satisfaction, chronic pain and time to first bowel movement (MCID: 12 hours).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 71 RCTs. Seven studies are awaiting classification. We included 45 studies that evaluated pre-emptive NSAIDs and 26 studies that evaluated preventive NSAIDs. We considered only four studies to be at low risk of bias for most domains. The operations and NSAIDs used varied, although most studies were conducted in abdominal, orthopaedic and dental surgery. Most studies were conducted in secondary care and in low-risk participants. Common exclusions were participants on analgesic medications prior to surgery and those with chronic pain. Pre-emptive NSAIDs compared to post-incision NSAIDs For pre-emptive NSAIDs, there is probably a decrease in early acute postoperative pain (MD -0.69, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.41; studies = 36; participants = 2032; I² = 96%; moderate-certainty evidence). None of the included studies that reported on acute postoperative pain reported adverse events as an outcome. There may be little or no difference between the groups in short-term (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.94; studies = 2; participants = 100; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence) or long-term nausea and vomiting (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; studies = 5; participants = 228; I² = 29%; low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in late acute postoperative pain (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.00; studies = 28; participants = 1645; I² = 97%; low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in 24-hour morphine consumption with pre-emptive NSAIDs (MD -5.62 mg, 95% CI -9.00 mg to -2.24 mg; studies = 16; participants = 854; I² = 99%; low-certainty evidence) and an increase in the time to analgesic request (MD 17.04 minutes, 95% CI 3.77 minutes to 30.31 minutes; studies = 18; participants = 975; I² = 95%; low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in opioid adverse events such as pruritus (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.76; studies = 4; participants = 254; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence) or sedation (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.68; studies = 4; participants = 281; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence), although the number of included studies for these outcomes was small. No study reported patient satisfaction, chronic pain or time to first bowel movement for pre-emptive NSAIDs. Preventive NSAIDs compared to post-incision NSAIDs For preventive NSAIDs, there may be little or no difference in early acute postoperative pain (MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.12; studies = 18; participants = 1140; I² = 75%; low-certainty evidence). One study reported adverse events from NSAIDs (reoperation for bleeding) although the events were low which did not allow any meaningful conclusions to be drawn (RR 1.95; 95% CI 0.18 to 20.68). There may be little or no difference in rates of short-term (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.30; studies = 1; participants = 76; low-certainty evidence) or long-term (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; studies = 5; participants = 456; I² = 29%; low-certainty evidence) nausea and vomiting. There may be a reduction in late acute postoperative pain (MD -0.33, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.07; studies = 21; participants = 1441; I² = 81%; low-certainty evidence). There is probably a reduction in 24-hour morphine consumption (MD -1.93 mg, 95% CI -3.55 mg to -0.32 mg; studies = 16; participants = 1323; I² = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if there is any difference in time to analgesic request (MD 8.51 minutes, 95% CI -31.24 minutes to 48.27 minutes; studies = 8; participants = 410; I² = 98%; very low-certainty evidence). As with pre-emptive NSAIDs, there may be little or no difference in other opioid adverse events such as pruritus (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.09 to 3.35; studies = 3; participants = 211; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence) and sedation (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.63; studies = 5; participants = 497; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in patient satisfaction (MD -0.42; 95% CI -1.09 to 0.25; studies = 1; participants = 72; moderate-certainty evidence). No study reported on chronic pain. There is probably little or no difference in time to first bowel movement (MD 0.00; 95% CI -15.99 to 15.99; studies = 1; participants = 76; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was some evidence that pre-emptive and preventive NSAIDs reduce both pain and morphine consumption, although this was not universal for all pain and morphine consumption outcomes. Any differences found were not clinically significant, although we cannot exclude this in more painful operations. Moreover, without any evidence of reductions in opioid adverse effects, the clinical significance of these results is questionable although few studies reported these outcomes. Only one study reported clinically significant adverse events from NSAIDs administered before surgery and, therefore, we have very few data to assess the safety of either pre-emptive or preventive NSAIDs. Therefore, future research should aim to adhere to the highest methodology and be adequately powered to assess serious adverse events of NSAIDs and reductions in opioid adverse events.

Effect of preemptive dexamethasone and etoricoxib on postoperative period following impacted third molar surgery - a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the anti-inflammatory effects of dexamethasone and etoricoxib after third molar extraction.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective, randomized, controlled, split-mouth study was conducted. 19 volunteers were allocated randomly to receive 90mg etoricoxib 1 hour prior to the procedure or 4mg intramuscular dexamethasone immediately after anesthesia. Baseline measurements were obtained preoperatively, and subsequent assessments were made on immediate postoperative, at 72 hours and 7 days after surgery to measure postoperative facial swelling by use of linear measurements, interincisal mouth opening width and visual analog scale score for pain. The amount of analgesics consumed was recorded. Descriptive statistics and the independent-samples t-test were used to compare the two groups at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

Dexamethasone was effective in the control roasted edema for measurements of the mandibular angle - wing of the nose and mandibular angle - labial commissure 72 hours after surgery. And for the measurement mandibular angle - mentum, in the time of 72 hours and 7 days. There was no statistically significant difference in relation to pain and trismus.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering significant results for some measures of the variable edema for the group that used intramuscular dexamethasone and the difference without statistical significance between groups for the other variables studied, we seem to reflect the intramuscular indication of the corticosteroid in a single dosage in relation to the use of etoricoxib as pre-emptive medication.

Comparative Evaluation of Preemptive Analgesic Effect of Injected Intramuscular Diclofenac and Ketorolac after Third Molar Surgery- A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Analgesia pre-emptively administered effect-ively aid in management of pain. Pre-emptive analgesia is anti-nociceptive treatment which prevents altered central sensitization of afferent inputs.

AIM

To compare and evaluate the pre-emptive analgesic efficacy of preoperatively administered ketorolac and diclofenac for controlling postoperative pain after third molar surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 50 patients with symmetrically impacted third molars were divided into two groups, 30mg intramuscular injection of ketorolac and 75 mg diclofenac sodium were used in the respective groups. The visual analogue scale was used to assess post operative pain for three days and the patients were also evaluated for the number of rescue analgesia.

RESULTS

The data was statistically evaluated with paired t- test. The maximum time taken for pain perception for Group A Ketoralac was 5.48 hrs and Group B Diclofenac sodium was 4.9 hrs and p=0.235 which was not significant. The mean number of tablets taken by the patients in the first three post operative days was 3.24 in Group A i.e., Ketorolac and 4.04 in Group B i.e., Diclofenac sodium. The values were compared using the paired t test. The p value = 0.004, which was significant.

CONCLUSION

Ketoralac showed better pre-emptive analgesic effect for post-operative pain management after third molar extraction. The immediate post-operative pain free period provided by both ketorolac and diclofenac by intramuscular route was same.

A split-mouth, randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled study to analyze the pre-emptive effect of etoricoxib 120 mg on inflammatory events following removal of unerupted mandibular third molars

Pain after third molar extraction has been considered the most suitable pharmaceutical model to evaluate acute pain. This study aimed to evaluate the pre-emptive analgesic/anti-inflammatory efficacy of etoricoxib 120 mg following mandibular third molar surgery. A split-mouth, randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted with patients undergoing the surgical removal of mandibular third molars. All volunteers were allocated randomly to receive either etoricoxib 120 mg or placebo 1h preoperatively, and inflammatory events were evaluated. An estimated sample of 18 surgical units per group was required based on a pilot study (95% confidence level and 80% statistical power). Rescue medication was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method through log-rank Mantel-Cox test and Pearson linear correlation (P<0.05). Pre-emptive etoricoxib reduced postoperative pain scores significantly in comparison to placebo (P<0.001), with a pain score peak at 6h after surgery (P<0.001). The mean rescue medication consumption was lower in the etoricoxib group compared to the placebo group over the study period (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between groups related to swelling and trismus. The pre-emptive administration of etoricoxib 120 mg significantly reduced the postoperative pain intensity and the need for rescue medication, but did not reduce swelling or trismus.

Efficacy of preemptive lornoxicam on postoperative analgesia after surgical removal of mandibular third molars

OBJECTIVE

Pain is the most encountered complication following third molar surgery. Although nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are often used for pain control, the effect of preemptive lornoxicam has not been detailed. We compare the analgesic efficacy of preemptive lornoxicam versus postoperative lornoxicam.

STUDY DESIGN

Forty-three participants aged 18 to 33 years who had bilateral, symmetrical third molars were included in this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. All participants took part in each of the 2 groups for a 1-month interval (crossover design). Group Pre received lornoxicam 8 mg intravenously 25 minutes before surgery and 2 mL serum saline postoperatively. Group Post was given the opposite protocol. Pain was evaluated by visual analog scale in the first 12 hours.

RESULTS

We observed statistically significant differences in the reduction of the pain level in group Pre (P < .05). These participants felt less pain in the first 5 postoperative hours and needed fewer analgesics in the first 12 postoperative hours.

CONCLUSIONS

Preemptive lornoxicam is effective for postoperative pain control.